The Environmental Protection Agency approved a component of boat fuel made from discarded plastic that the agency’s own risk formula determined was so hazardous, everyone exposed to the substance continually over a lifetime would be expected to develop cancer. Current and former EPA scientists said that threat level is unheard of. It is a million times higher than what the agency usually considers acceptable for new chemicals and six times worse than the risk of lung cancer from a lifetime of smoking.
Federal law requires the EPA to conduct safety reviews before allowing new chemical products onto the market. If the agency finds that a substance causes unreasonable risk to health or the environment, the EPA is not allowed to approve it without first finding ways to reduce that risk.
But the agency did not do that in this case. Instead, the EPA decided its scientists were overstating the risks and gave Chevron the go-ahead to make the new boat fuel ingredient at its refinery in Pascagoula, Mississippi. Though the substance can poison air and contaminate water, EPA officials mandated no remedies other than requiring workers to wear gloves, records show.
Damn, it’s almost like they’re not an actual environmental protection agency and are yes men in the pockets of the petrochemical corporations!
But that would be ridiculous right guys? Right?
what about pharmaceutics ? “oh no, they couldn’t, it is heavily regulated and it is science, b*tch!”
Tbh it’s more straight up price gouging with pharmaceuticals because if they tried this shit with medicine people would notice immediately due to the intense testing required, and the public is much less tolerant of scandals in medicine whereas most people probably don’t even care about this. So the most common thing is to sell drugs that work as intended, but at hideously inflated prices. Not to say there aren’t companies that will straight up poison you though, god knows it’s happened plenty of times in the not distant past. Remember thalidomide?
What if a certain oligarchs made sure the press would never step out of line?
Not saying that’s what happened during a certain thing that made headlines over the last few years, but it’s sure suspicious that Bill Gates, WEF and other billionaire foundations invest these huge sums into basically the backbone of Western without an agenda.
How about you find some non-bullshit reason to criticize the dude instead of unscientific nonsense? There’s plenty of factual reasons yet nobody actually wants to use logic
What is the logical reason to drop 300 million USD on a wide range of media companies? Philanthropy? Please, tell me, I’m open to logical suggestions. (Not kidding, no sarcasm.)
Yes? He has to make his nonprofit look legitimate so how better than to invest in otherwise unprofitable industries?
Also he could just believe in the idea. It’s not unheard of.
We seem to have different definitions of “logical”. That’s ok.
This is the most shocking article I’ve read in a very long time.
Time to write or call the EPA. I have to look up how to do that. - report submitted here, you can submit one here: https://echo.epa.gov/report-environmental-violations
Literally everyone near these fuel emissions will(not can) get cancer, and 7% of people who eat fish living near these fuels get cancer. WHaT?!?
Time to write or call the EPA.
Why would they care? That they just approved this stuff is sufficient proof that the right people got the “right incentive” to wave it through. Why should they anger the people who paid them?
Doing nothing changes nothing, while trying to make a difference could make a difference
Just saying, this is only being manufactured at one refinery right now, yeah? Maybe there would be a good place to protest.
The EPA is an executive agency right? Maybe if we raise enough hell to Biden himself, he can stop this shit.
7 percent of the people who eat fish will get cancer? Fish travel and their nutrients travel. Absolutely fuck this shit.
And chevron’s planning to use these fuels at 100 locations according to Pro-Publica so, yeah it’s a huge problem.
I just found the EPA reporting link online, what do you mean by raising enough hell to Biden himself, is there some sort of contact route to the president? And yeah, the EPA is an executive agency.
What’s the point of having an EPA if you have to write them letters to get them to do their job? They’ll just ignore it anyway.
Doing nothing changes nothing, while trying to make a difference could make a difference
Doing nothing? I’m just trying to live my fucking life here.
Live it up, bruv. Nobody’s saying you have to do anything, I’m providing a link to make a report for anybody who wants to.
Yeah we all are… Some will still write the EPA though.
Literally everyone near these fuel emissions will(not can) get cancer
It doesn’t say that. It refers to exposure “continually over a lifetime”.
There aren’t all that many substances that won’t cause cancer with continuous exposure over a lifetime. Gasoline certainly will, but so will sawdust or grape juice.
This article reads very much like the “Dihydrogen Monoxide” warnings. Let’s step back for a second and critically evaluate what is being claimed.
The EPA didn’t release a report that people continually exposed to water will definitely get cancer.
These two new fuels using plastic-based refined chemicals have been determined by the EPA to definitely give people cancer over repeated exposure throughout their lives.
These poisonous chemicals determined by the EPA read nothing like jokes for middle school science teachers.
They don’t even name the agent in question, or provide any information on its chemical composition. There is no way to corroborate any of the information given.
Do you even critically think, bro?
The chemicals subject to these proposed SNURs are as follows:
PMN Numbers (proposed 40 CFR citation): P–21–144 (40 CFR 721.11781), P–21–145 (40 CFR 721.11782), P–21–146 (40 CFR 721.11783), P–21–147 (40 CFR 721.11784), P–21–148 (40 CFR 721.11785), P–21–149 (40 CFR 721.11786), P–21–150 (40 CFR 721.11787), P–21–152 (40 CFR 721.11788), P–21–153 (40 CFR 721.11789), P–21–154 (40 CFR 721.11790), P–21–155 (40 CFR 721.11791), P–21–156 (40 CFR 721.11792), P–21–157 (40 CFR 721.11793), P–21–158 (40 CFR 721.11794), P–21–160 (40 CFR 721.11795), P–21–161 (40 CFR 721.11796), P–21–162 (40 CFR 721.11797), and P–21–163 (40 CFR 721.11798).
Chemical Names: Naphtha, heavy catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–144), Naphtha, heavy alkylate (generic) (P–21–145), Naphtha, full range alkylate, butane–contg. (generic) (P–21–146), Naphtha, hydrotreated heavy (generic) (P–21–147), Naphtha, light catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–148), Naphtha, light alkylate (generic) (P–21–149), Naphtha, hydrotreated light (generic) (P–21–150), Clarified oils, catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–152), Distillates, hydrotreated heavy (generic) (P–21–153), Gas Oils hydrotreated vacuum (generic) (P–21–154), Distillates, light catalytic cracked (generic) (P–21–155), Distillates, clay-treated middle (P–21–156), Distillates, hydrotreated middle (generic) (P–21–157), Distillates, hydrotreated light (generic) (P–21–158), Gases, C4-rich (generic) (P–21–160), Gases, catalytic cracking (generic) (P–21–161), Residues, butane splitter bottoms (generic) (P–21–162), and Tail gas, saturate gas plant mixed stream, C4-rich (generic) (P–21–163).
Per the EPA:
“The proposed Significant New Use Rules (SNURs) would require notification to and review by EPA before these fuels could be made using plastic waste-derived feedstocks that contain impurities like per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS), heavy metals, dioxins, bisphenols and flame retardants.”
https://www.regulations.gov/document/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0245-0001
https://www.regulations.gov/docket/EPA-HQ-OPPT-2023-0245/document
And here’s the full report: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/23886219-integrated-risk-assessment-for-chevron-waste-plastic-fuels
Do you mean you didn’t notice the included EPA report or you didn’t read the EPA report they obtained through FOIA?
It’s the one titled “Integrated Risk Assessment for Chevron Waste Plastic Fuels”.
The carcinogenic claims I read in the article would apply to “gasoline” just as much as the unnamed, undefined, “evil villain chemical(s)” described. The article is heavy on FUD, but very light on fact.
True, gasoline would not be approved today by the EPA’s own rules as it is a carcinogen. That’s how fucked our environment is.
That doesn’t mean that gasoline is not a dangerous substance, it just means that it has been grandfathered into the regulatory structure because of predates the EPA.
It’s an EPA report, specifically about plastic-based fuels that give people cancer, reported by more than one credible news source and corroborated by an EPA veteran.
Giving people cancer does not make a chemical an “evil villain”, but a fuel company known to abuse human rights and destroy the environment with carcinogens developing and the EPA approving fuels that they have determined give people cancer 100% of the time over repeated exposure is something that should be stopped, or if the EPA has made a mistake, made clear and retested.
This article is heavy on data and precedent, your comment is not.
It’s an EPA report, specifically about plastic-based fuels that gives people cancer
It is not an EPA report. It is a sensationalist article on ProPublica. Do not conflate the two.
grape juice.
wait what?
Also what about Nestea Zero. Asking for a friend
They perfectly knew the harmful effects of lead too when they choose to add it anyway to gasoline back then, from the point of view of oil industry it worked once already so surely it must work at least twice right?
We pumped you with lead not long ago and
youryou’re mostly fine. Let’s try again with something else but this time we want you dead, capish ?TEL killed around 100 million people worldwide and is still used in the US for small plane aviation.
Also, virtually all land along US highways in an urban areas are highly contaminated in lead.
ProPublica still out there, fighting the good fight. Some of the best real journalism around.
Let’s all come together, rent a plane or wtv runs this fuel, and keep it running next to all the executives homes 24/7
Scientists: Tetra ethyl lead is the most hazardous chemical additive in human history!
Chevron: Hold my beer.
What was their real reasoning for approving this? They are pure evil if they just ignore their scientists by telling they are “overstating the risk”.
Chevron paid them a lot of money.
Why don’t they ever name “the chemical”? And then they switch to the 2 chemicals later in the article. All I found was this article trying to Google it although I didn’t go too deep.
This is really oddly written. I almost expected it to end with some kind of gotcha and “the chemical” was water.
The reason they don’t identify these chemicals is, um, …because they don’t really know what they are. They are the reaction products from recycled plastic feedstock, which contain a wide variety of source materials, and so they call them “UVCB substances" meaning “Substances of Unknown or Variable composition, Complex reaction products or Biological materials”. Also called “Natural Complex Substances (NCS) of biological origin.”
In other words, junk from plastic garbage that will be added to boat fuel.
See my post above for the listing of chemicals, although they are generically labeled and not specifically identified has your correct, they don’t know the actual composition of the stuff.
more of Biden’s legacy
More for* Biden’s legacy, if he and the rest of his administration do nothing, but thanks for highlighting the fact that calling/writting just the EPA will accomplish nothing - those people are likely all appointees, with not a care in the world for getting re-elected.
All that said, the people down-voting you are ignoring that Biden has supposedly cleaned house at the EPA, or its in progress - they don’t get to lay everything at Trump’s feet any more. Not without dates and details neither they nor the OP’s article really provide. Biden’s term(1st?) in office is almost over for godssake!. Meanwhile, we SHOULD INDEED be harrassing Biden and some Congress-critters about this. This is August 2023, not November 2020.
Lastly, on matters of accomplishing anything of substance, according to the article, back in June, the EPA proposed a new rule that may yet see this new additive stopped in its tracks. Anyone know how that went?
Biden’s term(1st?) in office is almost over for godssake!
That’s a stretch. His term isn’t over until January 2025. Basically a year and a half left. He’s only 7 months past the halfway point.
Look, y’all’s knee-jerk defense of everything Biden was almost cute for the first year or so, but the rest of us are sick of waiting for your neo-liberal status-quo daddy to accomplish anything of substance and put a lid on events like this one.
All you just spelled out is that he’s had over a year longer in office(aka 62.8% - just a tad short of 2/3rds of his term) than he might have left. You really expect us to believe that an establishment Democrat is so much less capable of Trump-proofing than Trump was of sabotaging it all? They have records of every idiot Trump installed and other actions he took.
Did I say to impeach him? No, I said to write and petition him. Get on it.
Get on it as if his term is almost over, because let’s be real: 1.5 years is not enough time for him to accomplish all-that-much(especially by your metric of “he’s only had 2.5 years!!” 🙄 ).
On the other side of the same coin your knee-jerk reaction to calling Biden a typical neo-lib is laughable when he’s led the most progressive administration since FDR.
A $1 trillion infrastructure bill, the first major gun control bill in decades which implemented some common sense background checks people had been asking for for decades; the Inflation Reduction Act which would have been Build Back Better if it wasn’t for the neolibs in Congress who fought against it saying it was too much. This includes a $2,000 annual cap for out-of-pocket prescription drug costs for those insured by Medicare. $80 billion dollars to the IRS to audit the rich. A $380 billion corporate tax increase, and $369 billion in clean energy.
I’m as progressive as they come. This has been the most progressive administration of my lifetime; but sure let’s just pretend that Biden is just another neo-lib and give every brain-dead progressive fodder to say that Biden isn’t doing anything so they stay at home during the election next year…
You’re allowed to say you want more from the administration and push them to do more, sure. But pretending Biden is just another neo-lib who hasn’t accomplished anything is reductive and not constructive or helpful for progressives who want more to be done because things take more than 1 election to be accomplished which is something the progressive voting block never seem to understand.
Sorry, you’ve confused me for someone who gives a crap what else Biden has accomplished versus the shit like in the OP he or his expects us to let slide or not notice.
Voted Green last time, and surprisingly Biden has a shot at my vote in this coming election, BUT if you go far enough left, you get your guns back. Don’t come at me with the word “progressive” -to quote Biden, that’s malarky. There’s “progressive” Republicans, and while we’re on that topic, most of what’s getting passed is both bi-partisan and veto-proof, at least in the Senate.
Maybe don’t attribute everything good, or so much of anything in particular to Biden if you can’t handle seeing the actions of HIS appointees and their lackeys laid at his feet.
Call me when we get some real prison reform, among a myriad other issues on which Trump merely served as a delay for things the public wants which the Democrats in office don’t really want to do.
Lol what president actually does anything meaningful while they’re also running for a second term? They dont want to possibly lose any votes so they’ll just coast on their previous ‘accomplishments’ and cringe political ads until its time to vote.
To be fair, Biden spent considerable amount of time overturning the damage that Trump did too and a regulatory agencies. Of course, nothing’s perfect…
Why are you saying stuff like ‘likely’ and ‘supposedly’. Yes the EPA is an executive administration and its leadership is appointed directly by the president: Biden.
Because he only directly appoints the head of the EPA. Replacing the head alone does not a clean house make, and if it did, how would this fuel additive get approved?
Biden and his EPA are more focused on corporate interests. Ask yourself that same question, you think Biden and the head of the EPA have no authority over EPA’s decisions??
Preaching to the choir much?
